Furnace v. Cope et al
Filing
12
ORDER denying 11 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/31/2016. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
1:16-cv-0420-BAM (PC)
EDWARD FURNACE,
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
v.
COPE, et al,
(ECF No. 11)
Defendant.
16
17
18
Plaintiff Edward Furance (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights
19
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the
20
appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 11.) He argues that he requires appointed counsel to assist with
21
gaining the identity of a John Doe defendant in time to comply with the deadline for service of
22
the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). He further argues that he has a Sixth
23
Amendment right to counsel, and that appointing him counsel serves the public interest and the
24
efficient and proper administration of justice.
25
The Court reminds Plaintiff that this is a civil action, not a criminal action. Plaintiff does
26
not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this civil action, Rand v. Rowland, 113
27
F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff
28
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern
1
1
District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S. Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain
2
exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to
3
section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a reasonable method of securing and
4
compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and
5
exceptional cases. In determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court
6
must evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to
7
articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal
8
quotation marks and citations omitted).
9
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even
10
if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations
11
which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with
12
similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make
13
a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the
14
record in this case, the court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.
15
Id.
16
Regarding Plaintiff’s argument that he requires appointed counsel to assist with service of
17
the complaint, that argument is premature. The Court is required to screen complaints brought by
18
prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental
19
entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint cannot be served until it has been
20
properly screened. If Plaintiff’s complaint survives screening, a subsequent order regarding
21
service will follow. Thus, Plaintiff’s duties regarding service of the complaint, including under
22
Rule 4(m), have not yet been triggered in this matter.
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
2
1
2
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 11)
is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
May 31, 2016
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?